Senate failure means NSA surveillance tools evaporated at midnight. But for how long?

Share this story

The Senate failed to pass legislation late Sunday to extend three Patriot Act surveillance measures ahead of their midnight expiration. The National Security Agency's bulk telephone metadata collection program—first exposed by Edward Snowden in 2013—is the most high-profile of the three spy tools whose legal authorization expired.

President Barack Obama was set to sign the bill, the USA Freedom Act, ahead of the midnight Sunday deadline. But Senate lawmakers who convened in a special session at 4pm ET Sunday could not reach an accord. The Senate is to resume debate Monday at noon ET.

As expected, there was much banter back and forth on the Senate floor about whether the Constitution was being gutted or whether the country would come to ruins if the Senate did not quickly adopt the already approved House legislation ahead of the June 1 expiration deadline. (The three Patriot Act provisions that failed to pass the Senate were renewed days ago in the House through 2019.)

"Are we willing to trade liberty for security?" asked Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), perhaps the most vocal opponent of the legislation. Despite an apparent victory, Paul had no illusions that this fight for privacy would end after these specific extension talks. "The Patriot Act will expire tonight, but it will only be temporary," he added.

Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN) said it was time to stand up to terrorists and make "sure that we're doing everything we can to protect Americans from threats of people and a lot of organizations that want to kill us all, that would like to see us—see our heads on the chopping block."

After news of the imminent expiration broke, the American Civil Liberties Union quickly weighed in. "Congress should take advantage of this sunset to pass far-reaching surveillance reform, instead of the weak bill currently under consideration," the group said.

The three Patriot Act provisions on the agenda would have been extended until 2019 if approved. The first concerns the so-called "business records" provision that enabled the NSA's bulk telephone metadata program brought to light by the Snowden disclosures. This provision granted the government the power to seize all types of records—including those surrounding health and banking. The authorities must assert to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court (FISA Court) that they are "relevant" to a terrorism investigation before getting a warrant. The bulk metadata collection program was altered somewhat under the House and Senate legislation, however.

Under the package, the bulk metadata would have stayed with the telecoms. The authorities could then search the data with a FISA Court warrant, and the nation's spies must articulate a reasonable suspicion that the phone data is relevant to a terror investigation and that at least one party to the call is overseas. Under the provision, the Constitution's Fourth Amendment standard of probable cause does not apply. The metadata includes phone numbers of all parties in a call, numbers of calling cards, time and length of calls, and the international mobile subscriber identity (ISMI) of mobile calls.

The second provision that expired Sunday is lesser known and involves roving wiretaps. Under these wiretaps, the authorities may tap a terror suspects' communications even as they hop from one device to the next. Agents don't even need to tell the FISA Court who they are targeting, although a warrant from that court is required.

The last surveillance tool that failed to win Senate approval is the "lone wolf" provision. This allows the same type of roving wiretap authority, but the suspect does not have to be linked to terrorism or a foreign power.

Share this story

David Kravets
The senior editor for Ars Technica. Founder of TYDN fake news site. Technologist. Political scientist. Humorist. Dad of two boys. Been doing journalism for so long I remember manual typewriters with real paper. Emaildavid.kravets@arstechnica.com//Twitter@dmkravets

Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN) said it was time to stand up to terrorists and make "sure that we're doing everything we can to protect Americans from threats of people and a lot of organizations that want to kill us all, that would like to see us—see our heads on the chopping block."

Quick! Invade their country. Take the fight to them. /s

Quote:

The three Patriot Act provisions on the agenda would have been extended until 2019 if approved. The first concerns the so-called "business records" provision that enabled the NSA's bulk telephone metadata program brought to light by the Snowden disclosures. This provision granted the government the power to seize all types of records—including those surrounding health and banking.

Glad to see it's dead...for the moment, at least. I wouldn't count it down and out quite yet, it's too popular among certain sectors of the government, but it'll be harder to resurrect.

Regarding roving wiretaps, I always thought that wiretaps were against a person, not a device. Learned something new.

Not just government: housing prices, 401ks, and predicted private school enrollments are probably seesawing wildly across the McLean VA area as worried contractors bite their fingernails and wonder whether their resume full of scary all-caps codewords is going to be worth anything next week...

Security theater provides a lot of paychecks for a lot of dangerous clowns.

Ah, thank god it expired. I certainly agree though that we MUST keep a vigilant eye towards what those intelligence goons at the NSA try next. Actually, I'm really curious if they're really going to stop bulk collection. Their arrogance just staggers the imagination.

btw, notice how "relevant" is in scare quotes? That is because the fucked up NSA defines "relevant" as ALL. As in ALL phone calls are "relevant".

Well, the word "Court" should also be in scare quotes. Because a court has 2 sides presented with a judge listening and weighing evidence. But guess what...FISA only has 1 side. Simply a rubber stamping machine.

Every time we see FISC the last word "Court" should be in scare quotes because it is not one.

Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN) said it was time to stand up to terrorists and make "sure that we're doing everything we can to protect Americans from threats of people and a lot of organizations that want to kill us all, that would like to see us—see our heads on the chopping block."

Yes let's stand up to the terrorists - by showing that we're not afraid of them! I've always found this argument incredulous, because cowering in fear and instituting a police state is *letting the terrorists win*

I generally get it when politicians are for programs that can line their pockets. I'm sure that that is the same with the Patriot Act, because it's common knowledge that it's done nothing to curtail terrorist attacks since 2001. How do the senators and representatives that are for it benefit? Is there some sort of private sector defense contracting or something to provide the kickbacks? There has to be a payout for those guys, but I can't figure out what it is. This is not sarcasm, since it's been shown that the program doesn't work, the only conceivable explanation for congressional support is that a bunch of politicians will miss out on payola. Where does it come from? Or is it the simple thrill of wiping their asses with the constitution then rubbing out faces in it?

Rand Paul is slightly nuts, but at least he's nuts in a very useful direction, more so than the Democans or Republicrats who seem to be ever further apart on things that don't matter, and ever closer together on things that do.

Rand Paul is slightly nuts, but at least he's nuts in a very useful direction, more so than the Democans or Republicrats who seem to be ever further apart on things that don't matter, and ever closer together on things that do.

If thats the case, what makes him nuts? That the Republicrats and Democans call him that for having a different opinion on something that matters?

Rand Paul is slightly nuts, but at least he's nuts in a very useful direction, more so than the Democans or Republicrats who seem to be ever further apart on things that don't matter, and ever closer together on things that do.

he only seems nuts because the REAL nuts have been in charge for so long.

I generally get it when politicians are for programs that can line their pockets. I'm sure that that is the same with the Patriot Act, because it's common knowledge that it's done nothing to curtail terrorist attacks since 2001. How do the senators and representatives that are for it benefit? Is there some sort of private sector defense contracting or something to provide the kickbacks? There has to be a payout for those guys, but I can't figure out what it is. This is not sarcasm, since it's been shown that the program doesn't work, the only conceivable explanation for congressional support is that a bunch of politicians will miss out on payola. Where does it come from? Or is it the simple thrill of wiping their asses with the constitution then rubbing out faces in it?

The self interest here isn't monetary. It's keeping their job. You see, this one is actually on the general populace. Because when something happens, and something always happens because life is not safe, they'll be screaming wondering why the government didn't save them. You saw it after 9/11. People were practically throwing their liberties at the government demanding to be protected. Anybody who spoke up against it was practically tarred and feathered.

The average American has a few liberties they care about and they'll glad sell all the rest for a quiet, safe life. As long as they have their bread and circuses, they don't care. Nobody wants to accept that freedom is inherently unsafe, or at the very least they don't want to pay that price.

I generally get it when politicians are for programs that can line their pockets. I'm sure that that is the same with the Patriot Act, because it's common knowledge that it's done nothing to curtail terrorist attacks since 2001. How do the senators and representatives that are for it benefit? Is there some sort of private sector defense contracting or something to provide the kickbacks? There has to be a payout for those guys, but I can't figure out what it is. This is not sarcasm, since it's been shown that the program doesn't work, the only conceivable explanation for congressional support is that a bunch of politicians will miss out on payola. Where does it come from? Or is it the simple thrill of wiping their asses with the constitution then rubbing out faces in it?

Because when there's another Boston Marathon incident, people will be pointing fingers at the politicians that wanted the PATRIOT Act to die. It's essentially job security.

I generally get it when politicians are for programs that can line their pockets. I'm sure that that is the same with the Patriot Act, because it's common knowledge that it's done nothing to curtail terrorist attacks since 2001. How do the senators and representatives that are for it benefit? Is there some sort of private sector defense contracting or something to provide the kickbacks? There has to be a payout for those guys, but I can't figure out what it is. This is not sarcasm, since it's been shown that the program doesn't work, the only conceivable explanation for congressional support is that a bunch of politicians will miss out on payola. Where does it come from? Or is it the simple thrill of wiping their asses with the constitution then rubbing out faces in it?

Because when there's another Boston Marathon incident, people will be pointing fingers at the politicians that wanted the PATRIOT Act to die. It's essentially job security.

I generally get it when politicians are for programs that can line their pockets. I'm sure that that is the same with the Patriot Act, because it's common knowledge that it's done nothing to curtail terrorist attacks since 2001. How do the senators and representatives that are for it benefit? Is there some sort of private sector defense contracting or something to provide the kickbacks? There has to be a payout for those guys, but I can't figure out what it is. This is not sarcasm, since it's been shown that the program doesn't work, the only conceivable explanation for congressional support is that a bunch of politicians will miss out on payola. Where does it come from? Or is it the simple thrill of wiping their asses with the constitution then rubbing out faces in it?

Because when there's another Boston Marathon incident, people will be pointing fingers at the politicians that wanted the PATRIOT Act to die. It's essentially job security.

well...explain why the boston bombing happened WITH those provisions in place??

The NSA has been listening in on whomever it damn well pleases since it was created in 1952. So they got some legal coverage under the Patriot act for 14 years. Now its gone for a couple of days - no big deal, they'll just go back to whatever threadbare cover they were using prior, or re-define/twist a couple more english words and find some other bit of legal justification.

I generally get it when politicians are for programs that can line their pockets. I'm sure that that is the same with the Patriot Act, because it's common knowledge that it's done nothing to curtail terrorist attacks since 2001. How do the senators and representatives that are for it benefit? Is there some sort of private sector defense contracting or something to provide the kickbacks? There has to be a payout for those guys, but I can't figure out what it is. This is not sarcasm, since it's been shown that the program doesn't work, the only conceivable explanation for congressional support is that a bunch of politicians will miss out on payola. Where does it come from? Or is it the simple thrill of wiping their asses with the constitution then rubbing out faces in it?

Because when there's another Boston Marathon incident, people will be pointing fingers at the politicians that wanted the PATRIOT Act to die. It's essentially job security.

well...explain why the boston bombing happened WITH those provisions in place??

that will be the response by any half way intelligent person

Think about what you just said. Then think about the general makeup of the voting demographic. Then consider again why these politicians are going this way.

I generally get it when politicians are for programs that can line their pockets. I'm sure that that is the same with the Patriot Act, because it's common knowledge that it's done nothing to curtail terrorist attacks since 2001. How do the senators and representatives that are for it benefit? Is there some sort of private sector defense contracting or something to provide the kickbacks? There has to be a payout for those guys, but I can't figure out what it is. This is not sarcasm, since it's been shown that the program doesn't work, the only conceivable explanation for congressional support is that a bunch of politicians will miss out on payola. Where does it come from? Or is it the simple thrill of wiping their asses with the constitution then rubbing out faces in it?

Because when there's another Boston Marathon incident, people will be pointing fingers at the politicians that wanted the PATRIOT Act to die. It's essentially job security.

well...explain why the boston bombing happened WITH those provisions in place??

that will be the response by any half way intelligent person

Think about what you just said. Then think about the general makeup of the voting demographic. Then consider again why these politicians are going this way.

i get your point. i worded it that way intentionally

think of how dumb the avg voter is... and remember 1/2 of the voters are dumber than him

if you have at least 1/2 a brain you should be questioning what they are doing

Rand Paul is slightly nuts, but at least he's nuts in a very useful direction, more so than the Democans or Republicrats who seem to be ever further apart on things that don't matter, and ever closer together on things that do.

If thats the case, what makes him nuts? That the Republicrats and Democans call him that for having a different opinion on something that matters?

No, what makes him nutty is his own personal libertarian beliefs. Rand is one of those guys that sounds great for about three to five minutes, but he just doesn't know when to shut up and keeps talking. it's about then that you realize just how nutty he really is. Which being Ron Paul's son is to be expected. I like both of them but they're a bit nuts if they think their idealistic libertarian beliefs are workable.

The NSA has been listening in on whomever it damn well pleases since it was created in 1952. So they got some legal coverage under the Patriot act for 14 years. Now its gone for a couple of days - no big deal, they'll just go back to whatever threadbare cover they were using prior, or re-define/twist a couple more english words and find some other bit of legal justification.

Rand Paul is slightly nuts, but at least he's nuts in a very useful direction, more so than the Democans or Republicrats who seem to be ever further apart on things that don't matter, and ever closer together on things that do.

If thats the case, what makes him nuts? That the Republicrats and Democans call him that for having a different opinion on something that matters?

No, what makes him nutty is his own personal libertarian beliefs. Rand is one of those guys that sounds great for about three to five minutes, but he just doesn't know when to shut up and keeps talking. it's about then that you realize just how nutty he really is. Which being Ron Paul's son is to be expected. I like both of them but they're a bit nuts if they think their idealistic libertarian beliefs are workable.

so explain EXACTLY what you find nutty about him so we can better understand. calling him nutty because...hes nutty isnt saying much of anything

Glad to see it's dead...for the moment, at least. I wouldn't count it down and out quite yet, it's too popular among certain sectors of the government, but it'll be harder to resurrect.

Regarding roving wiretaps, I always thought that wiretaps were against a person, not a device. Learned something new.

I doubt just because it has expired that the NSA, CIA, FBI or any other alphabet agency will suddenly stop doing any of it.

I agree that a very large dollop of fully warranted "healthy skepticism" should be used as seasoning before anyone savor the flavor of this development. There is, after all, a history of classified directives being issued to authorize arguably illegal surveillance activity.

Given the way all of this is playing out, I honestly wouldn't be surprised to learn that the NSA follows a proprietary in-house calender with customized date calculations to compliment their in-house guidelines for contextual word usage.

Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN) said it was time to stand up to terrorists and make "sure that we're doing everything we can to protect Americans from threats of people and a lot of organizations that want to kill us all, that would like to see us—see our heads on the chopping block."

Yes let's stand up to the terrorists - by showing that we're not afraid of them! I've always found this argument incredulous, because cowering in fear and instituting a police state is *letting the terrorists win*

you are more likely to die fallowing down your stairs then to be shot by a cop or killed by a terrorist. should we do something to "fix" the stairs problem?

Frankly this is very off topic and has nothing to do with the patriot act.

It is on topic, because when we consider the trade-off between freedom and security, it is only a *little* bit of security we are talking about. Precisely because the numbers are so small.

But perhaps the numbers aren't the point. Perhaps the point is that terrorists (unlike stairwells) are human beings who want to push other human beings around and so we should push back. But the same goes for lawless cops, so by that measure, it's even more relevant.